If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

From the Article that Bleed linked:Pitino admitted after the 11-point victory over Illinois on Wednesday that he kept his starters in the game to make sure the final margin was at least 10 points. The NET caps point differential at 10, but the efficiency numbers can look better the more you distance yourself in points.

“I’m never trying to show up another coach,” Pitino said. “But if they’re going to tell me a win by more than 10 points means more, then if we can get it, I’m going to get it. It’s hard to win games in this league by double digits.”

This is confirmation that coaches are paying attention to it and it is affecting their decision making. That sucks for the guys at the end of the bench when a coach is forced to leave in their starters to increase the margin of victory in order to improve their team's ranking for the computers.

Also, it is a joke that we would be behind Indiana in any metric right now. That fact alone tells you there is something off with it.

That's exactly my concern. Is this becoming coach to the metric, a bit like teach to the test?
If followed, I think this will interrupt player development. Someone brought up scrubs, but did/will this keep Omersa out of some real time minutes?

That's exactly my concern. Is this becoming coach to the metric, a bit like teach to the test?
If followed, I think this will interrupt player development. Someone brought up scrubs, but did/will this keep Omersa out of some real time minutes?

It's called "posturing"

He's mad because it doesn't rank us as well as he thinks it should. If it ranked us #5 he'd be talking about how great it is.

Heard the announcer on a college game describe NET, the great new college metric: Run up the score, ignore the end of your bench. God forbid you play a walk on -terrific football idea -Crush the opponent ������

Hia quote indicates efficiency is a very minor consideratiin. How does this square with the Iowa State, among others, example?

His quote indicates that the last two minutes of a game (when a team might have their reserves in the game if it is a blowout) is a very minor thing. He didn't say efficiency as a whole isn't a big consideration.

He's just saying it doesn't have much of an effect. Which is true. Even if you are talking about the last two minutes of every blowout game -- you are still only looking at maybe 6-7 possessions in that time of each game that was enough of a blowout to put in reserves.

We've had 11 games where the winning/losing margin was more than 10 points.
Figure we have another 5 to end the season.
Figure there are 7 possessions in the final two minutes of each of those games.
16 x 7 = 112
So 112 out of 2,000 (if you take the minimum) possessions in the season is less than 6%.
Plus the other team likely doesn't have their starters in at that point either.

That's a pretty small thing to be worried about. That's his point.

Okay, so let's hypothetically concede your point. Then are we to believe that the current NET rankings are in fact a solid representation of who is good and who is not? And by extension that the old rankings were incorrect and that we were putting the wrong teams in the tournament? And considering the wide variations we see between, let's say the RPI and NET, that not only were we putting in the wrong teams, but completely the wrong teams?

His quote indicates that the last two minutes of a game (when a team might have their reserves in the game if it is a blowout) is a very minor thing. He didn't say efficiency as a whole isn't a big consideration.

My bad, read his quote too quickly. Problem I could see would be situation like Illinois game. Pitino had to consider not only efficiency but also scoring margin. Even though for just a few possessions, this would be impactful. Can see his point, though, as well. Would probably be affected as well by how many times a team finds itself in this situation.

Okay, so let's hypothetically concede your point. Then are we to believe that the current NET rankings are in fact a solid representation of who is good and who is not? And by extension that the old rankings were incorrect and that we were putting the wrong teams in the tournament? And considering the wide variations we see between, let's say the RPI and NET, that not only were we putting in the wrong teams, but completely the wrong teams?

1. It's a working model, not a finished product. I don't think it's perfect by any means. Tweaks will be made in the coming years. I like the idea of combining game results with efficiency measures. The premise behind it is in the right place in my opinion, though I don't think it's perfect yet. It probably never will be, some fan base will always be mad.

2. RPI was a horrible metric, and there is a reason that everyone from coaches/fans/administrators/etc wanted to see it go.

3. NET and RPI are the same in one way -- they each are just one of the metrics used. I do the bracketology thing each year, and I include every metric that the selection committee considers in the formula. There are a ton of things that have nothing to do with NET or RPI that are considered. KenPom, KPI, Sagarin, ESPN BPI, ESPN SOR, road record are all considered. Heck, the biggest factor in the model I use is winning percentage. None of those things are based on the NET rankings.

I guess my point is that there are so many factors considered, and I sort of get it why NET is singled out (because it is directly from the NCAA), but I think it's a little funny that people seem to have zeroed in on NET when other ranking metrics have us rated in a similar way. NET doesn't even have us rated the lowest out of all the different metrics used.

And last but not least -- let's wait to see what it looks like at the end of the season.

Or scheduling good teams and beating them all. Then your metrics will be awesome. Like if your 20-1 you will have great metrics. Simply can not play poorly or even average and be 20-1. Beating good teams means playing well.